February 15, 2006

Iran Strategies 3: Re-examining the "Default Assault"

It's not easy (and may be impossible) to come up with alternatives to the straightforward attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. So perhaps it's ripe to think a second time about what we need to do if we decide to "just go for it."

First, there are three flavors of attack on Iran:

We can do a limited strike of three or four of the best-known facilities, just to try to delay Iran's program and give us more time to decide what to do.

Or an all-out attack on all known and suspected nuclear sites, in an effort to utterly destroy Iran's entire nuclear program

Or in the spiciest version, a full-scale ground invasion of Iran

Number three is right out, I believe; we simply don't have the resources to deal with full invasions and occupations of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at once. There isn't enough military left after eight years of Mr. Clinton.

Number one is the "limited strike" option. Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation suggests, if we decide to go that route, that we hit Bushehr, a two-reactor (only one is likely working) light-water nuclear power plant; the Uranium enrichment facility at Nantanz, which has both an admitted above-ground section (only admitted after Iran's enrichment program was "outed" by an anti-government group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization, or MKO), plus and an as-yet secret and vast underground section; and the heavy-water production plant at Arak, which is also the site of a heavy water reactor being constructed.

The problem with the limited strike is that Iran is likely to respond with just as much retaliation for a limited strike as it would for a full-scale assault on its nuclear sites; I don't think anybody imagines they will "hold back" under any circumstances. And we're no more likely to get any allied backing for a limited strike than a bigger one. So in for a penny, in for a Krugerrand... there's no advantage to limiting the strike.

So scratch numbers one and three and go with door number two:

The all-out attack on all known and suspected nuclear sites, in an effort to utterly destroy Iran's entire nuclear program

We'll stick with this one and see where it leads us. What exactly do we need to do to really pull this off?

The disadvantage to this kind of attack, as I mentioned before (in the Guillotine Gambit and in Iran Strategies 2: Beachhead Bingo), is that we really don't know exactly what Iran has. We know there are at least two dozen sites -- but Iran could have as many as seventy or eighty. Even with the best planning and flawless execution, we're not going to get them all; what remains will be a seed for resumption, if Iran decides to continue down that path.

But we could dramatically increase the number of sites we can hit if we take the obvious precaution of getting Mossad to cooperate with the Pentagon, sharing with us everything they know about nuclear facilities in Iran. Oddly, while the Israelis had very little penetration into Iraq under Saddam Hussein, they have a lot better human intelligence (humint) sources in Persia; they can help a lot by revealing probable sites to us that the CIA would never have a chance of uncovering... and Israel, once convinced that we really are going to attack, would likely decide that they'd rather we hit everything... because Israel, of course, will bear the brunt of the inevitable Iranian counterattack.

So that brings us to a better plan:

The all-out attack on all known or suspected sites, using intelligence input and perhaps even on-the-ground laser targeting from the Israelis.

Naturally, Iran will respond to such an "outrage against Allah" by throwing everything they can lay their hands on at anybody unlucky enough to lie within reach. They don't have missiles that can reach the United States (that we know of!), but we certainly have assets they can attack right across the border with Iraq.

We also have to assume that Iran has chemical and biological weapons capability, though likely crude; and we should assume they will strike at civilian targets in preference to hardened military ones. Thus, as part of any planning for a strike, we also have to take out any retaliatory forces they have: ballistic and cruise missiles, bombers, even light aircraft and helicopters.

We should cut the roads leading from Iran into Iraq and Afghanistan; and we should also drive some of our forces into the Iran side of the border, hunting out and destroying any "safehouses" and terrorist forces we catch unprepared. My guess is that Iran expects a strike -- but they expect a limited strike, like Clinton used on Hussein: a few days of bombing that they think they can ride out. If we hit them as hard as we're envisioning here, we've got a good chance of "catching them with their pants down," as General Turgidson says in Dr. Strangelove.

But we cannot assume we're safe forever. Iran will eventually strike back, and they will shoot missiles at us, the Israelis, Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly even at Europe, if they have intermediate-range mobile missiles that survive our assault. We need to set up theater anti-missile systems in as many sites as we can realistically do.

Further, we must assume Iran will utilize Hezbollah -- probably its first choice in terrorist organizations, since Iran created Hezbollah and still largely controls it (except for the Lebanon chapter, which is presumably controlled by Bashar Assad in Syria). Thus, it behooves us to strike Hezbollah at the same time we strike Iran.

The Israelis might want to do some bombing runs down the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon, where the Syrian-controlled Lebanese Hezbollah is known to have its major strength. While Lebanon itself wouldn't cooperate with Israel in such an attack (I don't think they would), they probably wouldn't be heartbroken to see Hezbollah rolled up.

So now we have the almost-final list of targets:

An all-out attack on all known or suspected sites, using intelligence and targeting from Israel, coupled with an attack on all retaliatory forces, including missile sites, air bases, Iranian-backed "insurgents" in Shiite Iraq and along the border, and known sites for Hezbollah, and with our own missile-defense facilities in readiness for the inevitable counter-attack.

We should precede the attack with a lot of "psy-ops" -- moving troops all around to confuse the Iranians whether we are or aren't, if we do, when and how we will. But that's a given with any attack and goes without saying (so I shouldn't even have mentioned it, I guess).

But there is one last point... one that will certainly shock Europe -- so we don't dare tell them about it beforehand, because they might very well warn the Iranians.

Iran is also known to have a very cozy relationship with al-Qaeda, which makes no bones about wanting to attack the American homeland again. If Iran is thwarted in other ways (or even if they were successful in counterattacking us), they would certainly turn to al-Qaeda with money, weaponry, intelligence, and other support services, hoping the terrorists could pull off "the big one," the mother of all terrorist attacks that would be so devastating that (the Iranians believe) America would collapse and beg for peace.

So at the same time as we attack Iran and Hezbollah... we must launch simultaneous, well-coordinated, military assaults on all Iranian embassies or diplomatic missions in the United States.

Raid them all, cart off all documents, and we will probably identify a very large percentage of the al-Qaeda sleeper agents within our country. As we know from reporters such as Kenneth Timmerman, top Iranian leaders -- including, for example Hojjat-ol eslam Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, the chief inspector of the Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), a secret organization that reports direction to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- have in the past met directly with top al-Qaeda leaders, such as Ayman Zawahiri and even Saad bin Laden, Osama's eldest son and heir, as some guy on Captain's Quarters once revealed.

Iranians, like Iraqis, and like a great many dictators, keep careful records of their contacts; in particular, they would surely have better lists of al-Qaeda sleepers in the United States than does the FBI or the CIA. While it would cause an "international incident" for us to raid the embassies (including those at the United Nations building), it couldn't be any worse a one than the earful we'll already get for bombing Iran, would it?

So that's my final thought:

The all-out attack on all known or suspected sites, using intelligence and targeting from Israel, coupled with an attack on all retaliatory forces, including missile sites, air bases, Iranian-backed "insurgents" in Shiite Iraq and along the border, and known sites for Hezbollah, and with our own missile-defense facilities in readiness for the inevitable counter-attack... and including simultaneous military raids on all Iranian embassies, legations, and missions in the United States (including Turtle Bay), plus all suspected Iranian intelligence sites in the U.S., to seize all records that might lead us to al-Qaeda sleeper-cells within our country.

Whew, that's quite a list! But if we're really going to go down this road, it's much better to get it right, even if it means a delay of some months, than to rush it and half-bake the clam. As Machiavelli said (or as he should have said, if he didn't get around to it), "if you strike at the king, you must slay him."

No pussyfooting: if we're going to do it, we have to do it up right!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 15, 2006, at the time of 7:31 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/489

» Saddle Up, Boys from TechnoChitlins
Casus Belli Against Iran! Methinks the time is overdue- they're spoiling for a fight, so lets give them one. See here, here, here and here for some very workable strategies that take into account our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.... [Read More]

» Iran Strategies 6: Preparing For the "Herman Option?" from Big Lizards
We haven't had an installment of this popular (hah) series since April. (And I haven't noticed anyone screaming for its return...) But with the publication in November's Commentary of an article by historian Arthur Herman describing a new strategy for... [Read More]

Tracked on January 4, 2007 4:46 AM

Comments

If we assume that a nuclear weapons armed Iran is actually willing to use them preemptively, which we have every reason to believe based on their public statements, then yes it's a form of premptive self defense to utterly destroy as much as we can.

Conventionally.

Unfortunately this probably drags Russia and China into the formula in a big way and this needs to be carefully thought through before acting.

First, we tell the Russians we're going to offer to enrich uranium for a Turkish "nuclear power" effort. The Turks traditional enemies, the Russians, go absolutely nuts but we assuage them by saying we'll offer to withdraw/not make the proposal if they'll pressure the Iranians to destroy all the secret facilities the Russians have helped them build these last several years.

Second, we invade Syria and knock off the Baathists and the Assad regime, fighting alongside our new friends the Iraqi army. This reduces the pressure on Iraq, on the Lebanese government, puts us next to/into the Bekaa and isolates and freezes Hezbollah.

The Iranian goverment, having staked what's left of its shredded credibility on the totem of "nuclear power" collapses. Game, set, match.

No secret there, when Muslims scare the whole Western world, just by complaining about cartoons.

America has one move left...wipe out Iran's Nuclear threats with our conventional weapons, and send China a message by Nuking North Korea's Nuclear abilities, and their HUGE conventional army with real Nukes. Big Armies need to be hidden or they get destroyed...so to speak of sending a message to China.

We lost around 3,000 Americans during the Muslim Attacks of September 11, 2001, and they are waiting for a chance to kill more Americans. Our choice now...and, far too many Americans don't even have the stomach to slap Iran.

Games...how boring, especially during a War, with cartoons as a weapon. Stop playing games now, Americans, or start buying Burkas for your Daughters and/or Grand Daughters, and pray that they look sexually attractive to Muslim males.

i am almost done with this silly and Political American game of Warfare. Kill the Enemy, and send a warning to waiting Enemies, or put your sexy looking female offspring into Burkas.

The Chinese are watching, whilst 13,186,433 of their males reach Manpower reaching military service age annually, and they do not fear Muslims with a horny Army like that.

Reagan and both Bush's have been our toughest Presidents, and Jimmy "The Mullah" Carter laid down before the former Soviet Union, and created modern terrorism. The Chinese are now watching, waiting, and they have no qualms about using their Nukes. America fears Iran...how pathetic.

Wipe Iran out now (as in do it yesterday)...or talk some more whilst i watch...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at February 15, 2006 6:57 PM

Unfortunately this probably drags Russia and China into the formula in a big way and this needs to be carefully thought through before acting.

You choked after after mentioning "Conventionally", because you did not know what to do next, in case that move "drags Russia and China into the formula in a big way". "W" spoke of the "Axis of Evil", and has just two left. MSM and their American Left's "Puppet Masters" have fought against every move: 1) Afghanistan 2) Iraq, and may have cause "W" to choke, especially since a "hunting accident" is the focus now.

America can win no more wars, until the Republicans win in 2006 *BIG* Time. Heck, look at what you are saying here, and understand how Americans are so fickle, so soon after 911.

i will Vote in 2008, even though Americans will probably surrender in 2006. Shameful...

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at February 15, 2006 7:26 PM

i think that you are close, since we have recently offered to help Turkey get nuclear electrical power.

Second, we invade Syria

WOW...and why bother. Syria ain't squat...heck, they have lost Lebanon.

Apparently, even bird hunting confuses Americans, huh.

Axis of Evil..."W" needs to step up to the plate, and back up his talk. He needs to stop the 'one-at-a-time' crap, and put an end to Iran and North Korea at the same time. If he chokes, then it will be up to China to beat the Muslims.

"W", only Iran and North Korea are left, so don't choke now...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at February 15, 2006 7:47 PM

Russia, the former Soviet Union, now threatens America not to strike Iran. OK...forget my previous replies in this Thread, and *NUKE* Iran. If Russia wants to respond, then wipe their weak arses off the face of Planet Earth if they even breath anymore!!!

When third world nations talk nukes, then show them what nuking is about...BTW, most excellent point, Bill Faith!!!

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at February 17, 2006 7:11 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in,
.
Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.